Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  poaching
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The regulations on the equivalent for illegal hunting, foreseen rather as an additional burden directed mainly towards poachers, are not adjusted to situations where breaches are made by entities whose statutory task is animal management, including the implementation of the hunting plan. Attempts made to execute, in court, the responsibility of persons or entities tasked with the implementation of the plan, have proved ineffective, even though the State Treasury was represented by the specialised institution, namely the Attorney General of the Treasury. Besides, no ways for effective supervision of the hunting management have been worked out that would allow for eliminating excessive implementation of the hunting plan. Since in practice, there are no sanctions for exceeding the plan though, and the mandate of regional governors (voivodes), who are responsible for managing illegally hunted animals in controlled hunting zones, are practically limited to gathering information on exceeded hunting plans from forest district offices.
EN
The normative definition of poaching became a part of the domestic legal order along with the implementation of the Act on the Hunting Law of 13 October 1995. Making use of the circumstance whether a given act of poaching, as a differentiating criterion, is sanctioned by criminal or criminal-administrative responsibility, permits to isolate two contexts of the term ‘poaching’. In a broad sense it will overlap with its normative definition accepted in art. 4 par. 3 of the Hunting Law, whereas poaching proper (sensu stricto) will concern only these behaviours 12 that are intended to take possession of game in the manner which is not hunting or by violating the conditions of admissibility of hunting, which – at the same time – exhaust the signs of a crime or an offence aimed at protection of animals. Among the regulations which typify acts of this kind, the basic role in fighting the hunting crime is played by art. 53 item 4 of the Hunting Law, which penalizes execution of hunting by people who do not hold relevant licences to do so. The changes that followed in consequence of the amendment of the Hunting Law in 2004 were an expression of the legislator’s wish to separate the question of being licensed to hunt from the requirement of holding relevant documents while performing it. An unintended consequence of that move has been, however, a general exclusion of penalization of hunting without relevant authorization. With reference to hunters, the charge of violation of art. 53 item 4 of the Hunting Law can concern exclusively the case of hunting performed by them despite the lack of ‘relevant’ licence. Thus, on the basis of it this can be a non-falconer who hunts with a bird of prey, or a non-selector hunting for males of the fallow-deer who can be held responsible. On the other hand, situations that are particularly vital from the point of view of threat posed to animals, ones that consist in execution of hunting by hunters who do not hold a licence issued by the tenant or administrator of the district remain outside the objective range of influence of the regulation.
3
63%
EN
W II Rzeczypospolitej problem kłusownictwa był bardzo poważnym wyzwaniem i nigdy nie został znacznie ograniczony. W latach 1918–1939 z tym przestępstwem bezskutecznie walczyli policja, straż leśna oraz myśliwi. Kłusownicy byli niebezpiecznymi i nieprzewidywalnymi ludźmi, często zabijali myśliwych, leśników, a także nie wahali się strzelać do policjantów. W międzywojennej Polsce działalność kłusowników poważnie zagrażała istnieniu populacji nawet pospolitych zwierząt. Poaching in the Second Polish Republic was a serious problem that was never quite resolved. In 1918–1939, it was actively fought against by the police, forest guards and hunters. Poachers were dangerous and unpredictable people; they often killed hunters and foresters, they did not hesitate to fire at policemen. In interwar Poland poaching was a real threat to species, even to common animals.
PL
Artykuł zwiera próbę analizy kontekstu i przebiegu tzw. psiej kampanii, jaka miała miejsce w Polsce na przełomie lat pięćdziesiątych i sześćdziesiątych XX w. Przedmiotem analizy były dokumenty instytucji i urzędów, które zajmowały się wypracowaniem reguł postępowania z bezpańskimi zwierzętami (przede wszystkim psami, rzadziej kotami). Scharakteryzowana została też akcja protestów przeciwko odtwarzaniu rakarni, w których dokonywano brutalnych mordów na zwierzętach oraz przeciwko masowemu odstrzałowi bezdomnych zwierząt przez myśliwych i inne upoważnione do tego służby.
EN
The article attempts to analyse the context and course of the so-called “canine campaign” that took place in Poland at the turn of the 1960s. The subject of the analysis are documents of institutions and offices that worked out the rules and regulations for dealing with stray animals (primarily dogs, less often cats). The study also presents the action of protests against re-establishment of dog knackeries in which brutal animal murders were carried out and against the mass shooting of homeless animals by hunters and other authorized services.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.